Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kingdee MCP Server

Kingdee MCP Server

by WaHaiLong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

kingdee_delete_bills

Destructive

Delete draft bills from Kingdee Cloud Star ERP. Only bills in draft status can be deleted; submitted or audited bills require un-approval first.

Instructions

删除单据（仅草稿状态可删除，已提交/已审核的单据需先反审核）。

返回结构化结果：success=true 时表示删除成功。

Returns: str: JSON，含 success / bill_ids 字段

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "kingdee_delete_bills"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the critical behavioral trait: only draft status can be deleted; other statuses require prior unaudit. This adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the state dependency. The return format is also described, but permissions or error handling are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with 4 lines, front-loading the key usage condition. The return description is slightly redundant but does not waste words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the state dependency and output schema existence, the description covers the main behavior and return format but omits details on partial success, error handling, or prerequisites beyond status. It is adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description does not mention the required parameters (form_id and bill_ids), and schema coverage is 0%. The schema itself has descriptions, but the tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool deletes bills, specifying the resource (bills) and action (delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit or submit by adding the condition that only draft documents can be deleted directly, while submitted/approved ones need unaudit first.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when this tool can be used (only for draft documents) and implies the alternative (unaudit) for non-draft documents. However, it does not name the specific sibling tool (kingdee_unaudit_bills), leaving the agent to infer the prerequisite.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools